Credit: ASEAN

By Palitha Kohona
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka, Jul 18 2025 (IPS)

Who in Asia would ask for an Asian NATO? Past attempts to develop Asian security compacts under US leadership have not been glittering successes. The two treaty organisations that the US set up in the 50s to counter the Communist tide, the CENTO and the SEATO, have long dissipated.

Indo-China was taken over by the Communists, despite American and allied military interventions, the large-scale bombing, the devastation of countries and the loss of millions of lives.

Now the countries targeted, having survived the US led interventions, and having adopted liberal economic approaches, are thriving. Today the Indo-Chinese countries have mutually beneficial economic and political relations with China.

China has invested billions to develop infrastructure in the Indo-China region under its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the economic benefits are palpable.

Over one billion USD has been invested in the region and beyond under the BRI with the goal of realising a common prosperous future. The strengthening economic ties would seem to outweigh any need for new military alliances.

After the ouster of the Shah in Iran, Central Asia has become a quagmire for US and Western interests. Despite the expenditure of billions, repeated military interventions and millions of deaths, mainly of non-combatants, no one would suggest that peace has dawned on the Central Asian region covered by CENTO.

The ten ASEAN countries have developed an intertwined economic relationship with China and have benefitted hugely from the bilateral free trade agreement. Today China has replaced the US as the main trading partner of ASEAN, with bilateral trade reaching almost a billion US Dollars.

Goods produced in ASEAN, including fruits and vegetables, have ready access to the lucrative Chinese market and millions of Chinese tourists are pouring into ASEAN countries. The bilateral student exchange is thriving with Chinese students accessing educational opportunities, particularly in Singapore and Malaysia.

Admittedly, there could be flash points in the South China Sea, highlighted, and at times exaggerate in particular, by the Western media. But given the nature of the strengthening bilateral economic and people to people relationship between ASEAN and China and the historical depth of their ties, left to themselves, it is likely that the countries of the region will resolve their differences on their own. No one from the region has, so far, proposed a military alliance to resolve their differences.

It is instructive that within days of the US announcing punitive tariffs on Australian copper and pharmaceutical exports, Prime Minister Albanese of Australia was in China with a high powered trade delegation promoting trade and tourism. China is Australia’s largest trading partner and is unlikely to be eager to upset the apple cart (beef market?) by promoting a defence arrangement targeting China.

Australian exports to China amounted to AUD 196 billion in 2024 and are growing. Australia’s exports to China have a significant positive impact on the living standards of average Australians.

The QUAD involving the US, Japan, Australia and India, although promoted with much hype when it was first created, has in recent times become less prominent.

China is nuclear armed but has a no-first-use policy. Nuclear armed North Korea has a policy centred on deterring attacks. In the circumstances to promote a NATO type arrangement in East and South East Asia as a deterrent would seem excessive and provocative. China has only one base outside mainland China (In Djibouti) to counter piracy in the region.

North Korea has none. China nor North Korea have any defence oriented military personnel outside their own territories. The US has thousands of military personnel in bases surrounding China. The US pivot to Asia had China in its cross hairs. It is the US that has identified China as a strategic threat not the other way around.

The best way to reduce real and imaginary tensions (some stoked intentionally), would be to encourage parties to engage in dialogue with each other. A fractured world needs peace, not more conflict, for human progress.

What we require are alliances that promote infrastructure development for developing countries, that address the threat of climate change and sea level rise, which strive to eliminate extreme poverty, and which will make the world a better place for the living and for future generations.

In the past, US military incursions in the region did not produce peace. On the contrary, the progress of countries was dramatically curtailed, thousands of combatants and civilians died and millions were maimed. We must learn from the past painful experiences.

Dr Palitha Kohona is former chief of the UN Treaty section, a former Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations, and until recently, Ambassador to China.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

UN reform should be an ongoing dynamic process and not simply a response to regular US threats to withhold funding. It must be overseen by a specialized unit reporting to the Secretary-General and which should have the power to review the organizational structure, responsibilities, work methods and output of any unit in the Organization or any unit affiliated to with it and make recommendations. Credit: United Nations

By Palitha Kohona
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka, May 22 2025 (IPS)

The UN is going through another exercise in reforming itself under immense pressure from the US, its main funder. This time US President Donald Trump has expressed himself much more forcefully and seems determined to pare down US contributions and demand further curtailing of UN expenses, while some other donors, reluctant to show their own hands, are quietly cheering on the US.

To emphasise that it means business, and to the cheers of its cabal of domestic supporters, the US has withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and the World Health Organization (WHO).

In addition, it has pulled out of the Paris Climate Accords. On previous occasions, the US had also withheld its contributions forcing then Secretaries-General, Kofi Annan and Ban ki-Moon to undertake reform exercises. That the US should now adopt a more ruthless approach to the UN after having been a catalytic force in its creation, is a sad commentary on the changes that have impacted on the original idealism.

It would seem that the UN goes through the ritual of trying to reform itself every time the US withholds funding, usually when the Republicans assume power in Washington DC. At the time, many senior UN staffers cynically believed that the US would come up with the funds that it owed sooner or later and treated the reform ritual with supercilious indifference. (This was what I experienced during my time at the UN).

This time round, the UN reform exercise may have to be more meaningful if the Trump Administration is to refrain from going through with its threats to curtail funding. In any, event, many would agree that the UN needs reform, both within the organisation as well as in its political bodies.

Reassuringly and to the relief of many, the US appears to be still committed to the UN. The Acting Permanent Representative of the US to the UN, Dorothy Shea has said, “The United Nations remains essential to resolving complex international challenges, first among them maintaining international peace and security, and addressing the causes of armed conflict. The UN must return to its principal purpose and the Secretary-General is uniquely positioned as the Chief Administrative Officer to lead this endeavor.”

At a time when many governments are facing budget reductions and reprioritization, the United Nations must refocus on effective delivery of its core purposes. This includes better delivery where it matters most: at the country-level”. It would seem that the US commitment to the UN remains positive despite worries to the contrary articulated by some. However, the message of the Acting PR is abundantly clear — the UN must re-focus on its key goals.

One of the irksome issues to address is the plethora of activities for which the UN has assumed responsibility. Over the years, the Organization has taken upon tasks, mostly at the behest of Member States, that may fall broadly within its mandate, but which are not necessarily consistent with its core functions.

Although many such tasks could be brought within the broad scope of its Charter mandated responsibilities, critics would argue that they do not fall within its core mandates. The funding in many cases came from the core budget, and the support structure is provided by the Organization, and some activities may even be funded by special contributions from Member States.

This has enabled certain Member States to facilitate UN activities which they themselves have funded but, in most likelihood, which respond to the agenda of their own domestic pressure groups. Human Rights and the Environment, especially climate change, likely fall into this category.

Over the years, the UN has thus taken on the role of responding to the domestic pressures of individual states, especially the rich states, leaving doubts in the minds of some as to whether these functions really fall within the core responsibilities of the Organization.

Added to the problem is the persistent shortfall of funds to realise the range of functions now being undertaken by the Organisation. By April 30, 2025, unpaid “assessments” (money owed to the UN by individual countries) stood at US$2.4 billion, with the US owing $1.5 billion, China around $600 million, and Russia more than $70 million.

On top of that, the peacekeeping budget was $2.7 billion in arrears. In 2024, 41 countries did not pay their mandated contributions. While non payers could lose their right to vote, this has never proved an adequate deterrent to those intent on delaying their dues.

In March 2025, UN Secretary-General António Guterres launched “UN80”, a review that seeks to make sure the institution continues to be fit-for-purpose as it looks towards a financially straightened future. The threatened funding cuts by the US, has helped to focus the attention of the Organization.

This exercise of the Secretary-General, reminiscent of the experience of both previous Secretaries-General, Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon, who also launched similar exercises but which petered out in time as much of the organization returned to the comfort zone of existing work methods and practices. Some things changed but not much.

UN reform, to be convincing, should be an ongoing process and not simply a response to US threats to withhold funding. The Department of Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance (DMSPC) and the UNGA Fifth Committee perform useful functions in this respect, but the UNGA 5TH Committee is subject to too much pressure from Member States.

Managers must not only be technically competent but also be modern executives who believe in continuing change, upskilling and upgrading. Training to upgrade skills and the commitment of staff to the core goals of the organization should be a regular feature. Those appointed to the highest levels by the Secretary-General, must possess superior managerial skills, especially those presented for appointment by influential states.

The organization must adapt to changing circumstances, embrace modern work methods and attitudes, seek to produce the best with available resources, and, very importantly, be committed to producing value for money. The world must feel that the world organization is producing results commensurate with what the international community is spending on it and, especially its staff.

Many staff have resigned to marking time in NY or Geneva while not producing much of value for the organization or the international community.

UN 80 has identified areas that could be improved immediately. But many of these proposals could run into staff resistance. For example, it recognized outdated working methods leading to inefficiencies within the organization as a key problem, while intergovernmental meetings are not making use of modern tools and technologies.

These were problems identified even during the tenures of Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon. A complex range of solutions were implemented. UN staff are on better than average benefits packages. Those considered redundant were encouraged to take a golden handshake and leave. Staff training was a priority.

Staff assessment methods were modernized. I remember the training and team building sessions we attended at Glen Cove with specialized external trainers. Automation happened quickly. Kofi Annan initiated the award of a UN 21 Pin to superior performers in management. (I was one of the early awardees of the Pin). But the initiative petered out largely because many of the senior political appointees who came from outside the organization could not relate to the innovations.

One solution to this would be to require nominees for such appointments possess superior management experience. Better still, countries that make such nominations, provide the secretariat with multiple names. The leadership of a unit or a division plays a crucial role in making the unit dynamic and productive.

It is to be remembered many managers who originated in developing countries, such as India and China, now lead cutting edge corporations and occupy senior government positions in the West, especially in the US. These changes, properly implemented, would very likely improve delivery.

Without doubt, UN meetings can be organised differently. All meetings need not take place in New York or Geneva with the participation of delegations from capitals. These meetings are expensive to organise, costly to the participants and unlikely to have the best representatives from poorer countries due to the costs involved.

If participation could be arranged from capitals, using modern technology which is now freely available, results would most likely be better. Where in the rare case that a country cannot organise such distant participation using modern technology, the UN office in the capital could assist in providing the necessary facilities.

Some countries might consider this a cost-effective option even for meetings of the UN Committees and even the UNGA. (This was tried out during the Covid lock downs).

The UN has been asked to consider moving some of its offices to more cost-effective locations. Nairobi already hosts, inter alia, UNEP, and UN Habitat and numerous environment related conferences. It would also make sense to bring together all UN ocean related offices under one roof in Jamica where the Commission on the Continental Shelf is located.

The use of NY for ocean related offices and meetings seems incongruous given that the US is not even a party to the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC). A rigorous rationalisation of LOSC activities and moving them to Jamaica or some other similarly cost-effective location would seem desirable.

Given the close connection between the oceans and climate change, we could even consider moving all LOS activities to Bonn where the Climate Change secretariat is located. In addition to the cost advantages, access to cutting edge academic and dedicated research institutions in Europe would be an added advantage to both. The two institutions could feed from each other and thrive in a supportive environment. Moving UNDP and UNICEF out of NY should also be considered.

Over-lapping agendas of units such as between ECOSOC and its functional commissions and expert bodies, and those of the General Assembly and its Second and Third Committees, leading to duplication of efforts should be subjected to a rationalization review. Their own managerial bodies should undertake such reviews in the first instance.

A serious review must be undertaken of whether all those Under-Secretaries-General (USG), Assistant Secretaries-General (ASG) and Directors (D) are required. Many positions could be terminated, others consolidated. In implementing the reform, rigor must be exercised.

Otherwise, the current reform is also likely to go the same way as the previous ones.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

By Palitha Kohona
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka, Jun 18 2024 (IPS)

Today Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and the environmental threats they confront require our urgent attention —and the global spotlight needs to be trained deliberately and maintained consistently on their concerns, in particular, climate change, marine biological diversity loss and sustainable development goals (SDGs).

A world in which other pressing matters compete for attention, this challenge could easily be neglected.

There is a significant community of small island states in the world. The United Nations recognizes 39 of them. The aggregate population of all the SIDS is 65 million, slightly less than 1% of the world’s population but nevertheless a population that requires our attention.

https://www.un.org/ohrlls/content/list-sids

They share similar sustainable development challenges, including small populations, limited local resources, including land, remoteness, susceptibility to frequent natural disasters, easy vulnerability to external shocks, excessive dependence on external trade and almost all are highly threatened by climate change.

SIDS were recognized as a special case both for their environment and development challenges at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development  in Rio de Janeiro. 

High import and export costs will continue to be a factor in their economies, while their dependence on external markets due to the narrow resource bases make them particularly vulnerable. Since they control sea areas (in particularly the Exclusive Economic Zones),on average 28 times the size of their land mass, much of their natural resources come from the seas and oceans that surround them.

Therefore, the seas and oceans are critical from their perspective. Vulnerability to exogenous economic shocks and fragile land and marine ecosystems make SIDS particularly susceptible to biodiversity loss and climate change.

The Blue Economy, defined by World Bank as the “sustainable use of ocean resources to benefit economies, livelihoods and ocean ecosystem health” becomes particularly relevant to SIDS.

Over 40 percent of SIDS are affected by, or are on the edge of, unsustainable levels of debt, severely constraining their ability to invest in resilience, climate action and sustainable development. This is why they have been recognised as a special group that requires concentrated assistance.

The four main geographical regions in which SIDS are concentrated are the Caribbean, the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the Indian Ocean. 

4th International Conference on SIDS, 27 – 30 May, 2004

In his opening address as the President of the 4th International Conference on SIDS, Gaston Browne, Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda, forcefully underlined the importance of its theme — “Charting the Course Toward Resilient Prosperity”.

Stressing that such States are “on the front lines of a battlefield of a confluence of crises — none of which they have caused or created” — he said that the small size of such States, limited financial resources and constrained human capital, place them at a marked disadvantage on the global stage. Further, their journey towards development has been repeatedly disrupted by monumental crises, among them the financial meltdown of 2008 and the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic.

Reflecting the sentiments of many, he called for urgent, multilateral solutions, and he observed that those present are gathered “not only to reiterate challenges, but also to demand and enact solutions”. The Global North, in particular, must honour its commitments — including providing $1 billion in climate financing to assist with adaptation and mitigation.

Gaston Browne identified a clear gap in the oft expressed pious sentiments of the international community and actual action taken to implement these.

SIDS Dependency on the Seas and Oceans

Traditionally most small island states, surrounded by the seas and oceans, have been dependent on the oceans far more than bigger states for most of their needs. The seas provide a significant part of their food, including, fish, crustaceans, sea weed, etc, energy needs are imported across the seas, introduced and imported food, tourism which plays a considerable economic role, daily essentials and exports.

Sea food is a critical source of protein for SIDs. Today lobsters, prawns, scallops, mussels, etc are also a major income source for fishermen and a critical foreign exchange earner.

The income and protein source provided by the seas and oceans is threatened in some areas by overfishing, pollution, predatory and unregulated fishing by distant water fishers and, critically, by the impacts of climate change. The warming of the oceans is already having a devastating impact on coral reefs, so important as spawning grounds for myriads of fish and other economically important species.

Warming seas are likely to cause some fish species to migrate away from their traditional habitats and others to become extinct. Tuna migration habits in the Pacific Ocean, for example, are changing due to the heating of the ocean. This could have an enormous impact on Pacific small island states whose food supplies and economies depend on the tuna catch, and could cause an estimated $140 million loss in average government revenue per year.

Given the importance of the marine environment to small island states, it is vital that the exploitation of the resource takes place sustainably. Once a vital resource of this nature is lost, it is unlikely that it will recover in a short time, if ever. International agreements and arrangements in place at present with need to implemented with vigour and other arrangements may have to be put in place.

International Action and Options for SIDS

With their small economies, SIDS are at the mercy of the elements and with limited fall back options. A single hurricane could wipe out the economies of some small island states. Despite their minimal historical greenhouse gas emissions, SIDS face some of the most severe impacts of climate change, with serious loss and damage in the form of destroyed infrastructure, economic and cultural loss, loss of lives and livelihoods, loss of biodiversity and forced displacement.

It is now widely acknowledged that the depletion of the resource of the seas and oceans will result in numerable and unpredictable consequences including, massive unemployment, increased poverty, malnutrition, overall negative economic impacts, economic migration which will have repercussions for neighboring countries and possible community unrest.

Some international initiatives offer adaptation options to the SIDS.

The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Regional Seas Programme in 1974. (The Programme now administers this regional mechanism for the conservation of the marine and coastal environment to address the accelerating marine pollution). 18 regions participate in the Programme, of which 14 Regional Seas programmes are underpinned by legally binding conventions. The participating regions include, South Asian Seas, South-East Pacific, Western Africa and the Wider Caribbean where many of the SIDS are located.

In January 2015, the General Assembly began the negotiation process on the post-2015 development agenda, essentially the post Millennium Development Goals agenda. The process culminated in the adoption, at the UN Sustainable Development Summit in September 2015, of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with 17 SDGs and 169 targets at its core.

Following the adoption of Agenda 2030, the Regional Seas Programme seeks to assist Member States in achieving the ocean-related SDGs by coordinating national actions at the regional level. SIDS stand to benefit considerably from these programmes. Thus the Regional Seas programmes set the Regional Seas Strategic Directions (2017-2020) and decided to:

1. Reduce marine pollution of all kinds in line with the SDG Goal 14.1.
2. Create increased resilience of people, marine and coastal ecosystems, and their health and productivity, in line with the SDG Goal 13 and decisions made at the UNFCCC COP21.
3. Develop integrated, ecosystem-based regional ocean policies and strategies for sustainable use of marine and coastal resources, paying close attention to blue growth.
4. Enhance effectiveness of Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans as regional platforms for supporting integrated ocean policies and management.

Under the Paris Accords of 2015, developed country Parties to the Accords agreed to provide financial resources to assist highly vulnerable country Parties with regard to both mitigation and adaptation consistent with their existing obligations under the Convention.

The UNEP Adaptation Finance GAP Report estimates that adaptation finance needs in developing countries will reach $140 billion – $300 billion per year by 2030, and $280 billion to $500 billion per year by 2050. SIDS, if they are proactive in the search for funding, are expected to be a major beneficiary under this commitment.

It is recalled that under the Paris Accords, developed countries reaffirmed the commitment to mobilize $100 billion a year in climate finance by 2020, and agreed to continue mobilising finance at this level until 2025. This commitment included finance for the Green Climate Fund, which is a part of the UNFCCC, and also for a variety of other public and private programmes. This amount has not been reached at all.

The Paris Accords also recognize loss and damage. Loss and damage can stem from extreme weather events, or from slow-onset events such as the loss of land to sea level rise for low-lying islands and the warming of the seas. Tuna migration habits in the Pacific Ocean, for example, are changing due to the heating of the ocean.

The push to address loss and damage as a distinct issue in the Paris Agreement came from the Alliance of Small Island States and the Least Developed Countries, whose economies and livelihoods are most vulnerable to the negative effects of climate change.

At Cop 27 in 2022 countries agreed to establish a Loss and Damage Fund, which would provide financial assistance to climate-vulnerable countries. The fund was officially operationalized at Cop 28 in November 2023. The major beneficiaries can be the SIDS.

In 2021, Tuvalu in the Pacific and Antigua and Barbuda in the Caribbean established a Commission for Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law. The intention is to take claims for loss and damage to international judicial tribunals.

Vanuatu is also leading a campaign to ask the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on climate change. This initiative had its beginnings in2014 under the sponsorship of Mauritius.

Now we have an additional development which should make us think deeper.

June 2023, the United Nations adopted a new treaty under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (‘BBNJ’). Today, this is also known as the High Seas Biodiversity Treaty.

During the negotiations on this treaty, while the developed North focused more on Marine Protected Areas, and these are important, the South was equally interested in the equitable sharing of the benefits of exploiting the mega genetic pool of the oceans.

Properly managed, implemented in the right spirit, the sharing of benefits under this treaty could bring considerable material rewards to SIDS. They will benefit considerably if the sharing of benefits of the exploitation of BBNJ works well. It has been said that a single bucket of sea water could contain more genetic material than hectares of dry land.

Already major pharmaceutical companies are producing drugs developed from genetic material recovered from the high seas.

Dr Palitha Kohona is former Sri Lanka Ambassador to China and Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the UN and one-time Co-Chair of the UN ad hoc committee on BBNJ.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: United Nations

By Palitha Kohona
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka, Apr 10 2024 (IPS)

Unfortunately, a rivalry that should not exist and did not exist historically between China and India is being stoked by the media and some policy makers, especially in the West. It is not too difficult to discern the Machiavellian geo-strategic objectives of this complex game plan.

Most policymakers in the West find it difficult to accept that a non-European and non-white Asian nation which the West has been used to exploit and treat with disdain has risen so rapidly that it is now in a position to offer an alternative social, economic and political model to development and progress.

China has not only risen from the depths but is challenging the West in many respects, including economically, technologically, socially and even militarily. The China led the Belt and Road Initiative, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the Global Development Initiative, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the BRICS Bank, etc, have posed a real challenge to the established world economic order dominated by the West.

The BRI has resulted in the investment of over USD one trillion in the countries of the region and beyond making a tangible contribution to the development of many countries and has pricked the hitherto somnolent West also to participate positively in the development of those countries.

The calculated statements of EA Minister of India, Jaishankar, while emphasising India’s obvious strategic interests, have not overly endorsed the Western approach to China. China has attracted many admirers.

China has risen in a very short period to the position of an economic super power and to become the second largest economy in the world. It is expected to overtake the US economically by the end of this decade. It is also the main source foreign investments in the world, not to mention tourists.

It is also the biggest source in the global supply chain and the most lucrative multi billion dollar consumer market. All this is causing serious discomfort to those countries in the West, giving rise to damaging efforts at delinking, which were so used to dominating the world unchallenged. China’s technological advancement is nothing short of spectacular.

There could even be racist undertones to the criticisms being directed at China, a poor Asian country formerly dominated and exploited willy nilly by the West and to the reluctance to accept its new status and its own model of development. (One recalls that in the 1980s, a resurgent Japan experienced a similar process of vicious containment resulting in twenty years of stagflation).

China, for its part, has not articulated any desire to dominate or influence its economic partners and others or impose its political and economic model on anyone else. On the contrary, it has consistently expressed a desire to achieve a common future and a goal of shared prosperity, without domination. To judge Chinese intentions through the prism of the West’s own historical experience is patently wrong.

Both India and China are over dependent on Indian Ocean sea routes for the transport of their energy needs. While both would want to ensure the safety and security of Indian Ocean sea routes, both should also take adequate measures to prevent competition from blowing into confrontations of unmanageable proportions.

China has never expressed interest in establishing bases in the Indian Ocean region or acquiring territory. Its only military base in the region is in Djibouti established as part of a multinational effort to counter pirates.

The West which has been dominating the region since 1500 AD tends ascribe similar motives to China against the background of its own past record. (The situation with regard to Hambantota which has crept in the West’s narrative requres a longer explanation).

Sri Lanka’s initiative in the 1970s to establish an Indian Ocean Zone of Peace, although designed to contain the then prevalent super power rivalry in the Indian Ocean, may become relevant again in the contemporary context.

The situation in the Maldives should NOT be viewed purely from the Western lens and characterised as a simple case of China – India rivalry for regional influence. The domestic Islamic political imperatives and the resulting political pressures on the Maldivian leadership are important factors.

It is a fact that Chinese companies have been proactive in developing infrastructure in Maldives for sometime and their work is of good quality. India’s official reaction to the Maldivian measures has been measured. China has signed a number of bilateral agreements with the Maldives and Maldives readily agreed to accept a ship visit from a Chinese research vessel which was denied access to Sri Lankan ports due to Indian pressure.

Some critics argue that Chinese investments in Sri Lanka are part of a larger geopolitical strategy by China to expand its influence in the region.

This assertion needs to be stripped of its polemical outer layer to appreciate its essential shallowness. To begin with, it is mainly raised by commentators from countries which had rapaciously exploited vast swathes of the non white world through conquest and colonialism for centuries and continuing economic domination, conveniently ignoring their ongoing depradations.

Sri Lanka, which desperately needs development funding, has welcomed the China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) at the highest levels. It has not sought to exclude anyone else from participating in our development process. We have steadfastly asserted our non-aligned status and our neutrality.

In fact, our President has characterized the AUKUS alliance, which is designed to contain China, as a mistake. The Sri Lankan Prime Minister visited China this week and was received at the highest levels.

China has already invested around USD one trillion in the countries that joined the BRI, and more is forthcoming. Sri Lanka needs to develop fast and has no option but to welcome investment funding from all sources.

As a sovereign and independent state, Sri Lanka must be free to select its own development partners and its own development model. In the process, it has not sought to exclude anyone nor posed a threat to anyone, directly or indirectly. Sri Lanka has welcomed all friendly countries to participate in its development process.

I would not characterise Sri Lanka’s approach to development as a balancing act. It is not. Sri Lanka must work with all countries to achieve its own development objectives which should not be held hostage to the unfounded sensitivities of any other party.

Dr Palitha Kohona is also a former Sri Lanka Foreign Secretary, Head of the UN Treaty Section, chairman, UN Indian Ocean Committee and Chairman of the UN’s Sixth Committee.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Credit: United Nations

By Palitha Kohona
BEIJING, Jul 4 2023 (IPS)

There is little doubt that human activity is accelerating climate change. Our activities are causing global warming and potentially disastrous climate change.

The vast majority of scientists agree. The IPCC has overwhelmingly endorsed this view. Many among civil society also agree.

Given this substantial consensus, we need to take action to contain climate change.
We need to take urgent action to limit human activity that results in global warming and climate change.

We have agreed on the need to contain global warming to 1.5c.

So, what is the problem?

While there is broad agreement on the need to contain global warming for the sake of humanity, for the sake of future generations, and on what needs to be done, little of what needs to be done is being done.

At this stage it may be prudent to review what has been broadly agreed on what needs to be done and what remains to be done and why some things have not been done.

We may have to get involved in a discussion on why human beings are reluctant to give up what they have achieved from the prosperity resulting from industrialisation.

Industrialisation resulted in unbelievable creature comforts, especially in developed countries. Now we are talking about reducing, perhaps even eliminating, some of those creature comforts.

This observation applies even to the late comers to prosperity. Some of whom are in our part of the world. This is where the problem lies.

Over the last three centuries some countries industrialised by using fossil fuels and by decimating their forests.

But the prosperity that resulted did not begin to seep down to the lowest levels until the last century. But it did seep down. Somewhat late in the day.

I must say that I will not get in to the blame game and pile up blame on certain countries, especially the countries that led the industrial revolution, which led the industrialization race, for being responsible for our ills in the first place.

Even in these countries, the vast majority of the poor began to enjoy the benefits of industrialisation only in the last century or so. They will be the ones who will require the most convincing and who will find it difficult to give up their recently acquired prosperity.

Now we need to talk about what can be done. We need this discussion to be intensified multilaterally and domestically.

First our awareness raising needs to be more comprehensive. It’s not only governments that need convincing. Ordinary people need convincing too. Ordinary people across the globe.

The ones who are dreaming of their first refrigerator. The first air conditioner. They need to accept the need for something to be done.

But they also need an alternative. What do we give them as an alternative to the refrigerator that they are dreaming of. Certainly not softly uttered words of consolation.

We need to provide an alternative that works on a renewable power source. An alternative that does not aggravate the current situation globally.

We have the commitments from Paris and before. We need to invest heavily in alternative and reliable power sources. We know what needs to be done. We know more or less how to do it. Now we need the resources, the funding.

Many countries in the South are endowed with alternative energy sources. Wind, solar, hydro, etc. But lack the resources to exploit them. They will have no alternative but to stay with cheap fossil fuel-based energy.

We need a global multilateral funding agency to allocate funds for renewable power generation. Call it a green Bank if you will. Existing funding agencies may not fully meet the bill.

Such an entity will be funded by a variety of entities. States, charities, legacies, individuals depositing their reserves, etc. But its mandate will be to provide funding for green development.

Such an agency must operate in a transparent reliable manner. But we have the experience. There are other related funding needs. A dedicated and well resources Bank is likely to address our needs.

The transition to electric vehicles is a clear priority. China has recognised the need to transition to EVs as a key to reducing GHG emissions. China today is the leader in EV manufacture. China has also achieved amazing success with desert reclamation.

Ambassador Dr Palitha Kohona is the former Chief of the UN Treaty Section, Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the UN and currently Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China.

This article contains excerpts from an address to the World Peace Forum, 2023, Tsinghua University, Beijing

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Palitha Kohona
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka, Sep 16 2019 (IPS)

Sri Lanka is endowed with an impressive and large concentration of whales off its shores and it is believed they are not a population that migrates seasonally. 26 species have been spotted in Sri Lankan waters, including the massive blue whales.

Large numbers, with their young, frolic off Galle and Mirissa along the southern coast, off Kalpitiya along the North Western coast and off Sri Lanka’s magnificent deep water natural habour, Trincomalee. One could almost guarantee multiple sightings of these whales, off Sri Lanka.

The Sri Lankan whale population may feed and produce offspring in the same area unlike all other baleen whale populations of the world. Strong upwelling ocean currents off the narrow continental shelf, the furious south west monsoon, and dozens of tropical rivers pouring nutriment rich fresh water in to the ocean, may produce adequate food for small fish to flourish for the whale population to sustain itself.

Today, the greatest threat to whales off Sri Lanka’s coast may arise from ship strikes. Ships traversing the busy east-west shipping lane just about 20 km to the south of Sri Lanka and those entering the new Hambanthota harbour which is a massive economic asset to the country are likely posing a threat to the giants of the deep.

HUMANS AND WHALES

Although whale numbers around the world appear to be recovering from the carnage that the European and American whalers and sealers inflicted on them, serious concerns remain. Mercilessly hunted for their blubber and other products, the population of these giants of the oceans declined precipitately for almost two centuries and extinction threatened.

Whales also beach themselves and die for reasons still not fully understood. And today, with the oceans crowded with large ships, ship strikes take their toll on these giants of the deep.

The biggest animal on earth, the blue whale, balaenoptera musculus, was a valuable commodity and a slow moving and easy target. The blubber of whales was a prized item then.

A single blue whale could provide about 50 tons of blubber that was used to produce cosmetics, soap, cooking oil and oil for lamps and wax for candles while the skin was converted to fine leather for corsets and umbrellas.

The blue whale population is estimated to have declined from 350,000 to roughly 7,000-15,000 before whale hunting was banned in 1986 by the International Whaling Commission established under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946.

The humpback population was reduced by 98 percent during the same period. Australia banned whaling in 1978.

Credit: Dr Palitha Kohona

Sri Lanka, especially before independence, became an indirect accessory to the slaughter of whales as whaling ships called at Sri Lankan ports for water and supplies. An American consulate was established in Galle, Sri Lanka in 1857 mainly to serve the interests of U.S. whalers.

The belated awakening of the conscience and of the need to conserve nature for our own benefit forced the industrialised nations to put in place measures to protect these species. Like in many other instances, it was an afterthought and perhaps too late.

Once the damage had been done and the conscience pricked, as has happened time and time again in the all-conquering West, whaling nations met and concluded the International Whaling Convention 1946. Today whaling is banned except for scientific purposes.

Japan, Iceland and Norway continue to hunt whales under this exception despite the noisy protests of environmental NGOs, such as Greenpeace, Campaign Whale, Whale and Dolphin Conservation and Sea Shepherd.

Since 1978, it is likely that over 50,000 whales have been killed by these three nations, Norway may have taken 14,344 since 1986. Japan over 21,842. The total number of whales has increased very slowly since the ban.

DISTRIBUTION

Whales have not been known to harm humans, especially the mammoth blue whales. This is quite remarkable considering the immense size of these animals as well as the fairly recent history of humans engaging in a massive slaughter of this species wiping roughly 98%-99% of them off the face of the earth.

Still after what we humans have done to them, what remains today are “Remnant Island” sub-populations of blue whales scattered here and there across the globe, with each group mostly or totally separate genetically from all the others.

In Antarctica. Credit: Dr Palitha Kohona

The majority of pre-whaling blue whales lived in the Southern Ocean, with the extremely productive Antarctic waters and waters off sub Antarctic islands being the primary feeding grounds for most of them.

It is believed that whales live for 70-90 years, give birth to 22-25 foot calves weighing 3 – 5 tons each about once every 3-5 years, fatten those calves to the tune of 220 pounds each and every day with the world’s richest milk, nurse these calves for about seven months, feed year round, and most importantly enrich the oceanic waters they inhabit by stimulating oceanic primary production (phytoplankton) with their mineral rich large fecal plumes.

Blue whales are very adept at finding and gorging krill by the millions. They make the loudest sounds in the animal kingdom and communicate with one another over distances that defy belief, likely to be 1000 miles or greater!

The brains of whales, about 9 kg in weight, may be more complex than human brains in certain areas. Observing their behaviour and reading about them, one begins to wonder whether they are much more advanced than we think with our imagination crowded with religious and social indoctrination.

The southern right whale’s testes weigh a mind boggling one ton. Sadly, blue whales have not shown signs of major recovery since the era of whaling ended about a half century ago.

The primary reason for this is likely to be their propensity to be struck by transiting ships in their feeding grounds, which in most but not all parts of their range is a seasonal issue. They evolved for millions of years without a predator, being too big and fast for orcas to hunt.

This separates them evolutionarily from almost all the other large whale species. In some of the regions where ship strikes are halting their ability to recover from the era of whaling, geographical constraints (California and Chile) make it almost impossible to move the shipping lanes out of the way for the safety of the whales.

In these regions, if we alter the time of day the majority of ships transit to avoid the night time when sleeping blue whales are most vulnerable, we may be able to greatly minimize the number of ship strikes.

In other regions there are no geographical barriers (Sri Lanka, Australia), and the lanes and transiting ships can in theory be moved a bit further from the coasts out of the feeding grounds of the whales.

In these regions the blue whale ship strike problem may be more easily reduced or even eliminated. We need to study the economic impact of the shifting of the sea lanes carefully before taking any action.

In order for global shipping lanes or routes to be formally regulated or adjusted the country most concerned must be a member of the International Maritime Organisation based in London and formally request assistance from the Organisation. Sri Lanka is a member of the IMO.

If a shift in the timing of transiting ships or slowing them down is the goal, in order to minimize ship strikes of whales, this then involves the industry and the port, and becomes a safety issue for those whose role it is to ensure that there are no collisions near ports and arrivals and departures occur in a safe manner.

All these aspects need to be examined carefully, keeping in mind both conservation and economic imperatives, before a regulatory mechanism is formulated.

ECO TOURISM

In Sri Lanka, however, there are major constraints to regulating human activity affecting whales. While moving shipping lanes need to be assessed against the urgent need of the island nation to attract ships, especially to its new port of Hambantota which lies barely 20 km from the busy east-west shipping route, the needs of cargo shipping must be kept in focus.

Sri Lanka is dependent on its export and import trade and trans-shipment is becoming a major income earner. Adjusting shipping routes need to be examined cautiously. Similarly, a large fleet of fishing boats, providing employment to thousands, operates from a number of harbours along the coast and, given sufficient incentive, a fisherman will become a guide, albeit a poorly informed one, to tourists.

One sees the cowboy approach of certain fishermen on a regular basis and education and training becomes a high priority. With tourism, becoming a major component of the island’s economy any regulatory measures must of necessity be a compromise between economic demands and conservation.

Whales, blue whales in particular, are an asset for any nation to have in their coastal waters. They are the biggest animal on earth and this alone makes them a major tourist attraction.

WHALE WATCHING

The whale watching season in the south of Sri Lanka runs from November to April / May. In the North West, the best time is from July to September. During the rest of the year, the waters become too rough due to the Monsoon.

The best place to spot whales is in Mirissa, a small town on Sri Lanka’s south coast, popular for surfing and known for whale watching and also for observing thousands of dolphins.

At Kalpitiya, several whale species including, blue whales and minke whales can be seen. In the north east, off Trincomalee Bay, more whales can be observed. An official permit is required to get into the water to swim with the whales.

Whale watching in Sri Lanka could be a success story for Eco-tourism, if the government regulatory organs, along with the tourism industry, organize themselves to ensure the safety of whale watchers as well as the whales and to educate tourists of the amazing eco-system that surrounds Sri Lanka

Excerpt:

Coral reef ecosystem at Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge. Credit: Jim Maragos/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

By Palitha Kohona
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka, Sep 11 2018 (IPS)

Responding to a persistent demand by developing countries, the conservation community and science, the UN General Assembly has commenced a process for bringing the areas beyond national jurisdiction in the oceans under a global legally binding regulatory framework.

Approximately two thirds of the oceans exist beyond national jurisdiction. The Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS), concluded in 1982, currently provides the broad legal and policy framework for all activities relating to the seas and oceans, including, to some extent, for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction (BBNJ).

However, despite the comprehensive nature of UNCLOS, many feel that BBNJ is not adequately covered under it as detailed knowledge of BBNJ was not available, even to the scientific community, at the time. Advancements in science and technology have brought vast amounts of knowledge to our attention in the years following the conclusion of UNCLOS.

Today human knowledge about the oceans, including its deepest parts which were inaccessible previously, is much more comprehensive and new information continues to flood in due to significant scientific and technical advances.

UNCLOS, referred to as the ‘Constitution for the Oceans’ by the former Singaporean Ambassador Tommy Koh, came into force in 1994,and will necessarily be further elaborated as human knowledge of the oceans increases and human activities multiply.

It is already complemented by two specific implementing agreements, namely the Agreement relating to Part XI of UNCLOS, which addresses matters related to the Area as defined in the UNCLOS (the sea bed beyond national jurisdiction), and the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of UNCLOS relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. The proposed treaty on BBNJ will be the third implementing agreement under the UNCLOS.

The seas and oceans, which have acquired unprecedented commercial value and have become a major source of global nutrition, have also been the subject of considerable international rule making, most of it piecemeal. An estimated 200 million people world-wide make a living from fishing and related activities. Mostly in poor developing countries.

Fish provide at least 20 % of the animal protein intake of over 2.6 billion people. A treaty on BBNJ, as envisaged, while filling a gap in the existing global regulatory framework, will also result in significant areas of the oceans being set aside as Marine Protected Areas (MPA) to provide protection to marine biological diversity, its critical habitat, including spawning areas, as well as ensuring the equitable division of the benefits resulting from the scientific exploitation of such resources, especially through the development of new products.

Under the umbrella of UNCLOS, and carefully accommodated within it and its implementing agreements, a number of international instruments (and regimes) at the global and regional levels relevant to the conservation and
sustainable use of marine BBNJ, have been put in place already.

At the global level, these include inter alia, the regulations adopted by the International Seabed Authority for the protection and preservation of the marine environment in the Area; the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); instruments adopted by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); measures adopted by the International Maritime Organization; measures relating to intellectual property in the context of the World Trade Organization and the World Intellectual Property Organization.

At the regional level, the relevant measures include those adopted by regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements (RFMO/As) by regional seas organizations having competence beyond areas of national jurisdiction.

A range of non-binding instruments/mechanisms also provide policy guidance of relevance to the conservation and exploitation of marine biodiversity, including beyond areas of national jurisdiction. These include the resolutions of the UN General Assembly on oceans and the law of the sea and on sustainable fisheries, as well as the Rio Declaration and Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 adopted at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation adopted in 2002 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, the outcome document of the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, i.e. The future we want, and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, in particular Sustainable Development Goal 14 (Conservation and sustainable use of the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development).

However, despite the existence of the above regimes, the need for a legally binding multilateral instrument to govern the protection, sustainable utilisation and benefit sharing of BBNJ has been advocated by a range of interest groups for some time. A champion of this process has been Argentina.

The negotiation process. Smooth sailing or rough seas ahead?

The UN ad-hoc working group (WG) on BBNJ, established by the GA in 2004, in response to the demands of a majority of the international community, took over ten years to finalise its recommendations in February 2015. Initially, the WG made little progress and was running the risk of being terminated.

Since 2010, it was co-chaired by Sri Lanka (Ambassador Dr Palitha Kohona) and the Netherlands (Dr Liesbeth Lijnzard). While the subject was not easy, and many delegations were only beginning to grasp its complexities, curious coalitions began to form. The Group of 77 (G77) and the European Union (EU) formed a common and a powerful front for different reasons.

Many strategic negotiating approaches were discussed behind the scenes and effectively deployed by these two unlikely allies resulting in a successful outcome to the work of the WG. Basically, the G77 wanted the future exploitation of BBNJ regulated globally so that the anticipated benefits would be distributed more equitably and marine technology transferred consistent with the commitments made under the UNCLOS.

Already significant numbers of patents based on biological specimens, including microorganisms (12,998 genetic sequences), retrieved from the oceans, many from hydrothermal vents, have been registered. (11% of all patent sequences are from specimens recovered from the ocean). 98 per cent of patents based on marine species were owned by institutions in 10 countries.

The German pharmaceutical giant, BASF, alone has registered 47% of the patented sequences. The financial bonanza that was expected from the commercialisation of these patents was hugely tempting. It is estimated that by 2025, the global market for marine biotechnological products will exceed $6.4 billion and was likely to grow further.

The EU, for its part, wanted to reserve large areas of the oceans for marine protected areas for conservation purposes. Conservation in this manner would result in providing space for genetic material to replenish itself naturally. The goals of the two groups were not necessarily contradictory.

The reservations on the need for a global legally binding regulatory mechanism for BBNJ were expressed mainly by the US, Japan, Norway and the Republic of Korea. Their interest was in preserving the unhindered freedom of private corporations to exploit biological specimens to conduct research and produce new materials, including drugs, biofuels and chemicals for commercial purposes.

These corporations needed the assurance that the billions that they were expending on research would produce financially attractive results. The difficulties involved in identifying the sources from where the specimens were recovered (whether beyond national jurisdiction or within), the costs usually associated with a discovery and bringing a commercially viable product into the market place, the actual need for a legally binding instrument in the current circumstances, the possibility of achieving the same goals through a non binding instrument, etc, were some of the concerns articulated.

These concerns are expected to be raised during the treaty negotiations as well. The US which held out to the bitter end preventing consensus at the WG is not even a party to the UNCLOS. A Preparatory Committee established by the UNGA to make recommendations on the elements of a draft of an international legally binding instrument (ILBI) on the conservation and sustainable use of marine BBNJ under UNCLOS, prior to holding an international conference met in four sessions in 2016 and 2017. Treaty negotiations began in September 2018 following the organizational session (in April 2018) and the conclusion of the fourth and concluding session of the Preparatory Committee.

It could be expected that the US and the like-minded group, reflecting a recognisable private enterprise oriented policy bias, would continue to raise objections affecting the smooth progress of the negotiations. The Trump administration, which has made it a habit of distancing itself from compacts to which the US had solemnly subscribed cannot be expected to be more sympathetic to the BBNJ aspirations of the G77 and the EU any more than the Obama administration.

Deposit with the UN Secretary-General

The Secretary-General is the depositary of over 550 multilateral treaties, mostly negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations. The UNCLOS and its two implementing agreements are examples. These are customarily deposited with the SG due to the recognition that he enjoys in the international community as a high level independent global authority.

The proposed treaty on BBNJ would in all likelihood, be deposited with the UN SG, when concluded. The day to day management of activity relating to these multilateral treaties is the responsibility of the Treaty Section of the UN Office of Legal Affairs, a function which dates back to the early days of the creation of the UN. Exceptionally, a major multilateral treaty may be deposited elsewhere.

For example, the NPT is deposited with the governments of the US, UK and Russia. Under Article 102 of the UN Charter all treaties, both multilateral and bilateral are required to be registered with the UN. The UN is the custodian of over 55,000 bilateral treaties so registered, currently available on line.

Excerpt: